Boston Police Ed Davis Want Drones For Next Marathon

[NewEngland4Obama]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/boston-police-drones-marathon_n_3169613.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D305050



Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis


Next year's Boston Marathon could be watched over by drones.

The city's police commissioner, Ed Davis, told the Boston Herald that using the aerial surveillance technology during next year's race is "a great idea."

"I don’t know that would be the first place I’d invest money, but certainly to cover an event like this, and have an eye in the sky that would be much cheaper to run than a helicopter is a really good idea," Davis said.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Perhaps we could deploy an aircraft carrier in Boston Harbor.

[jakeXT]

2. Body Armour for the runners /nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. With this as well

Or the over heating victims will be epic

[randome]

3. Much cheaper than a helicopter, as he says.

If only used for surveillance, then the moment something goes wrong, they can track a suspect trying to get away. In fact, knowing this was being used would likely be a deterrent to any future tragedies like the bombing.

[burnodo]

6. Like the death penalty will deter killing?

I guess the bombers weren't deterred by the ample surveillance that led to their downfall.

[randome]

7. The bombers were stupid, not even thinking about store surveillance cameras.

No, I don't think the death penalty deters. People still act on their impulses thinking they won't get caught. But if they know beforehand that they WILL be caught on camera, that might be a more effective deterrent.

[msongs]

8. they already knew they would be caught on camera...cell phone cameras are everywhere nt

[randome]

10. They didn't know enough to act shocked like everyone else.

They didn't know enough to prevent their carjacking victim from making an easy escape. They didn't even have an exit plan yet they panicked in an attempt to get away.

These were not smart kids at all.

Store cameras can still catch someone in the act but a surveillance drone could track them and make it next to impossible to get very far. Knowing that was true would be a deterrent, I think.

[morningfog]

13. You still haven't explained how that would be a functional deterrent.

They had to have known they would be on cell cameras and store surveillance cameras. I don't see how a drone in the sky would add so much to deter anyone.

Someone would either think that the lag time for identifying them would be enough to get away, the same as with the cell/surveillance cameras or they would be the dumb kind (like these) that didn't consider any of it. I don't see who this would actually deter.

[randome]

16. Make public announcements as much as possible. Get the word around before an event.

It won't be a foolproof system but it might deter someone.

[Honeycombe8]

21. The bombers were too stupid to realize about the store surveillance cameras. nt

[morningfog]

15. lol. The moment something goes wrong they can track the suspect?

There is no "suspect" the moment something goes wrong.

[randome]

17. With a telescopic lens, a recording can be immediately reviewed.

Someone calmly walking away from the tragedy -as happened after the Marathon Bombing- would be a dead giveaway. Or someone talking into their cell phone the moment an explosion occurred.

Granted, a lot of people would likely be using their cell phones at the same time but the list of likely suspects can be quickly whittled away until you have a handful and then see where they went after an explosion. Then you may have a couple. Then maybe one.

There is no foolproof system but an eye in the sky gives a better perspective on what happens on the ground.

Make that public knowledge and make it often and perhaps -just perhaps- would-be bombers would think twice.

[morningfog]

18. It would be worthless in reality.

No quicker than what is already in use. I don't think a public service announcement "Your attention please: Any bombs you set will be monitored by video" would deter anyone intent on doing harm. This is fantasy land.

These guys were idiots. Idiots and professionals aren't deter by even somewhat effective approaches. One as meaningless as this will have zero deterrence effect.

[randome]

20. I don't mean loudspeaker announcements.

I mean announcements on the news, in press releases, in public safety awareness billboards, etc. There are ways to get the message out there. It wouldn't be foolproof, like I said, but it might serve as a deterrent.

And you're right, we can't fix idiocy. But doing as much as possible to get through to the idiots that they're wasting their time might stop some copycat bombers. And do something to allay the public's concern for safety at the same time.

[Honeycombe8]

22. If not for deterrence, for cutting the time it takes to get video of them.

It took awhile to gather video submissions from marathon attenders and review it. That wouldn't have to be completed...it would still be done, I think. But they would already be reviewing the drone video while doing that. So it would save time.

[burnodo]

5. "A great idea"

Really? I don't know why. Can't you just install some additional cameras? I'm reminded of the show "Dark Angel" where in a dystopian future, the Seattle police had these hover drones that had cameras and audio equipment. The plot of the episode was bad people who installed machine guns on the drones. Sounds like that's next for us! "He looks like like a Muslim!" pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow "Oops! Sorry lady! My bad!"

[Logical]

9. How in the hell would that have prevented these bombings? n-t

[morningfog]

14. I wouldn't have. It is an overreaching idea from an overreaching police force.

[Bake]

11. At least he doesn't want the drones ARMED ...

I have major mixed emotions about the use of drones for surveillance. On the one hand, it's out in public, so there's no real expectation of privacy. On the other hand, it sort of reeks of Big Brother police state.

Bake

[markpkessinger]

12. Strikes me as a colossally stupid waste of money . . .

. . . and I'd like to hear from the Mayor how, exactly, he thinks drones would have prevented this. I suppose they could be preprogrammed to zero in on young men carrying backpacks -- sure to narrow the focus -- NOT!

[BeyondGeography]

19. How about some improved old-fashioned police work

like watching out for unattended bags?

[Honeycombe8]

23. It's obvious. We can't possibly have physical eyes on the ground covering

that amount of ground, watching for bags, as much as eyes in the air electronically covering a much larger area, without distraction. After all, people DID see these guys leave the bags. But they didn't suspect anything, I guess, enough to report it, anyway. People on the ground have too much to look at, too much going on.

[BeyondGeography]

24. We're talking about the finish line

Security was lax. I'm sure they'll do better next time.

[Honeycombe8]

25. Exactly. The finish line. Too much going on. People DID see the bags being left.

It takes a thing not involved in the action, removed from it, to survey a broad area looking for specific sorts of things. There is NO WAY for humans to cover that amount of ground, looking for various types of activities. That's why these bombings are successful all over the world. Even in Israel, which has intensive surveillance and protection in place.

[BeyondGeography]

26. In fairness to Davis, he said, "I don’t know that would be the first place I’d invest money"

re. drones. I take that to mean more human resources will be on the ground next time integrated with more real-time monitoring of electronic surveillance, maybe checkpoints and metal detectors for the crowded stretch at the end of the race. It will be much harder to wander close to the finish line, drop a bag unnoticed by security, walk away and then detonate it, and not because of aerial surveillance.

[Honeycombe8]

27. It will probably be both. Of course there will be more feet on the ground....

since America is becoming acclimated to being the target of in-country terrorist attacks, like Great Britain and other countries. But that doesn't mean ALL technology that is reasonably available and cost effective shouldn't be used, as long as there are privacy protections.